Entrapment defense work lives in the gray spaces of police investigations. Clients rarely walk into my office saying, I was entrapped. They come in scared about the charge, worried about their job or immigration status, and puzzled by how a casual conversation became a felony. Once I dig into the facts, some cases carry the distinct fingerprints of government inducement: repeated calls after a firm no, promises of unusually high pay for a tiny risk, or manipulation of an addiction that officers already knew existed. Other cases look like standard stings with lawful undercover tactics. The difference matters. When a jury hears true entrapment, the law gives them permission to say not guilty even if the underlying act happened.
This is a practical guide drawn from the trenches. It will not turn you into your own attorney, and it cannot cover every jurisdictional wrinkle. It will, however, give you a clear view of how entrapment defenses actually work in drug cases, what judges and juries listen for, and how a seasoned drug crimes lawyer builds or dismantles the claim.
What counts as entrapment, and why it is hard to win
Entrapment is a legal defense that, if proven, excuses conduct that would otherwise be a crime. The core idea is simple: the government cannot manufacture crime by inducing someone who was not predisposed to commit it, then prosecute them for taking the bait. In practice, two things drive most courtroom battles. First, did law enforcement induce the conduct through persuasion or coercive tactics rather than simply providing an opportunity? Second, was the defendant predisposed to commit the offense before government contact?
Most states follow either the federal “subjective” test or a minority “objective” test.
Under the subjective test, the spotlight falls on the defendant’s mindset. The government can put on evidence of predisposition such as prior similar acts, quick acceptance of the offer, knowledge of drug jargon, or access to suppliers. The defense emphasizes reluctance, clean record, withdrawal efforts, or special vulnerabilities exploited by officers or informants.
The objective test, used in a few states, asks whether police tactics would have induced a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime. This standard looks harder at the government’s conduct, https://rentry.co/tofxxxo6 less at the defendant’s history. A defense attorney drug charges case built under the objective test often lives or dies on recordings and text messages that show pressure, deceit, or extraordinary incentives.
Either way, entrapment is uncommon and often contested because many sting operations are lawful. Police can pose as buyers or sellers, can ask if you have access, can negotiate price, can set up a place and time. They can lie about their identity. They cannot, however, badger a person who has said no, exploit desperation they created, or escalate temptation to a level that overbears the will of someone who was not already ready to commit a crime.
The hard part is that predisposition can be proven through small details. If a person quotes market prices for a certain quantity, uses coded language fluently, or texts that they have been “moving weight for years,” jurors will often infer readiness. An experienced drug crimes attorney knows the prosecution’s playbook and starts building the record early to counter those inferences.
The anatomy of a drug sting, and where entrapment emerges
I see four common patterns.
First is the cold-call buyer scenario. An informant texts a client, says they “need a zip,” and asks if the client can “help out.” If the client hesitates, says they do not sell, then gets peppered with pleas about sick children or threats of self-harm, we are approaching inducement. If the client replies with price tiers and delivery options, predisposition becomes the government’s theme.
Second is the social network setup. A friend of a friend introduces an undercover as someone who “just needs a small amount” for a party. There might be drinks involved, flattery, or romantic interest. If the target is reluctant but the officer builds a rapport over weeks and then raises the stakes to a felony quantity, a jury may see manipulation. Good agents avoid that drift, but it happens.
Third is the reverse sting. Officers sell narcotics to the target, not buy from them. This can trigger entrapment when the government supplies drugs the person would not otherwise possess and pushes quantity or credit terms that are unusually favorable. Courts worry about the government creating the very crime they prosecute.
Fourth is the addiction play. Informants sometimes leverage a target’s dependency. When someone in withdrawal is promised a free hit or a deep discount if they arrange a sale to an undercover, inducement arguments sharpen. Juries understand that addiction clouds decision making. The law does not excuse all conduct tied to addiction, but exploitation of a known weakness resonates.
Across these patterns, the single best evidence is contemporaneous communication. Screen recordings of text threads, call logs, and audio recordings often decide whether a judge even allows the entrapment defense to reach the jury. A criminal drug charge lawyer with trial experience will fight early for discovery of any and all communications between informants and the client, including metadata and unedited audio.
The two elements: inducement and predisposition
The defense has to put both pieces in play. A bare claim of inducement with strong evidence of predisposition fails, and vice versa.
Inducement is more than an offer. Officers can ask, even repeatedly, without crossing the line. The law looks for persuasion, coercion, or excessive pressure. Relentless badgering after clear refusals, exploiting a close relationship, threatening to expose unrelated secrets, or promising extraordinary profits for minimal risk can qualify. Timing matters. One late-night plea on a single day might not be enough. A month of back-and-forth, with the officer escalating the stakes after each refusal, paints a different picture.
Predisposition is the prosecution’s counterweight. They will use whatever the rules of evidence allow. In many jurisdictions, once the defense meets a threshold showing of inducement, the government can introduce evidence of prior similar conduct that would otherwise be inadmissible. That surprises defendants. A clean record helps, but it is not decisive. I have seen prosecutors argue predisposition from a client’s fast agreement, from knowing a reliable source, or from prior texts about drugs that never led to charges. A seasoned drug charge defense lawyer will try to limit that evidence and give the jury a fuller context: the client’s work history, family obligations, or reasons for the language used.
One edge case arises when the government suggests a crime of a kind and scale the person never contemplated. For example, an undercover pushes a novice into distributing pounds when the person has only ever possessed small personal-use amounts. The further the government strays from what the defendant was predisposed to do, the stronger the defense becomes. Courts sometimes recognize a “degree” of predisposition. That nuance can mean the difference between a distribution felony and a possession misdemeanor during plea talks.
Informants: the messy middle
Most entrapment litigation involves informants. Some are working off their own cases, some receive cash, some are embedded in communities where officers cannot easily go. Their incentives are mixed. They often exaggerate how connected they are to targets, brag to handlers, and oversell the strength of evidence. Many defense investigations start with building a dossier on the informant’s background.
That does not mean informants are always unreliable. There are excellent ones who operate within clear boundaries and document their work. The difference shows up on paper. A credible informant keeps clean notes, follows instruction, and minimizes pressure. A bad one floods the target with calls, uses personal leverage, and goes off script.
When I suspect overreach, I file motions for disclosure of the informant’s agreement, payment history, and any misconduct reports. In some courts, the government must disclose impeachment material under Brady and Giglio. The prosecution might resist on safety grounds. Judges sometimes use in-camera review to balance safety with fairness. If the informant was the sole contact, lack of disclosure can tip the case toward dismissal or at least suppression of tainted evidence. This is the type of work a diligent drug crimes lawyer should press early, before the narrative hardens.
How recordings make or break the defense
In one case, the state claimed my client jumped at the chance to sell. The recording told a different story. Over nine days, the informant sent 47 messages, invoking shared childhood memories and pressing the urgency. My client said no five times, finally relented to “introduce” the informant to a third party, then backed out again. Only after the informant threatened to show up at my client’s workplace did a meeting happen. The jury acquitted in under two hours. The messages made inducement and lack of predisposition tangible.
Contrast that with a case where the recordings showed the undercover asking, You holding? The client replied, Come by. He then narrated the quality, offered a discount, and volunteered delivery. Hard to argue that the government created the crime.
In many jurisdictions, the jury decides entrapment, not the judge, unless the record is so one-sided no reasonable juror could find entrapment. That means credibility and tone matter. A transcript misses sarcasm, hesitation, or the sighs that show reluctance. Jurors pick up on those cues. When possible, we play the audio and show the actual screen captures, not just transcripts. A defense attorney drug charges strategy that treats the recording as a sterile exhibit leaves persuasive power on the table.
Offers too good to be true, and the problem of artificial quantity
Quantity often drives mandatory minimums and plea leverage. When the government inflates quantity beyond anything the target sought, entrapment overlaps with “sentencing manipulation” arguments. These are difficult, but not hopeless. If an undercover insists that the only deal available requires a specific, large quantity, and the defendant repeatedly seeks a smaller amount, courts in some jurisdictions allow a reduction or a downward variance at sentencing. Others treat it as classic entrapment logic and send it to the jury on predisposition.
A practical example: an undercover insists on two ounces for a first deal, promises a premium price, and throws in a free sample. The defendant had previously only handled grams. If the defense can show persistent attempts to reduce quantity, reluctance to scale up, and pressure from the government to go big, the entrapment theme strengthens. Even if the jury convicts, those facts can affect sentencing. A thoughtful drug crimes attorney will preserve both paths.
When addiction is front and center
Addiction complicates entrapment. On the one hand, people struggling with substance use may be more susceptible to pressure, especially when an informant withholds a fix to secure cooperation. On the other hand, repeated possession or low-level sales linked to supporting a habit can look like predisposition.
I do not rely on addiction alone to prove inducement. Instead, I gather treatment records, expert evaluations, and testimony from family or counselors to show two things: the client’s functioning level and whether the government exploited a clinical vulnerability. Judges are more willing to let entrapment go to the jury when the evidence shows officers knew the person was in withdrawal or used the promise of drugs to trigger the offense. Jurors, in my experience, are receptive when the exploitation is plain.
Procedural nuts and bolts that shift outcomes
Entrapment is often an affirmative defense. Depending on the jurisdiction, the defense must produce some evidence of inducement, after which the burden shifts to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed, or that there was no inducement. In a few places, the defendant must prove entrapment by a preponderance. The difference shapes how a case is tried.
Jury instructions are critical. They must accurately describe the law and fit the facts. I draft proposed instructions early, tailored to the communications in the case, and fight for language that clarifies that mere opportunity is not enough. I also ask for an instruction that predisposition must be evaluated before the first government contact, not after the person has been nudged along. That temporal focus keeps the jury’s eye on the right moment.
Discovery fights are routine. Body-worn camera files can be incomplete. Audio can be edited. I request original files, device logs, chain-of-custody records, and any notes showing how clips were selected. If the government refuses to disclose an informant’s identity, I explore whether their role was so central that due process requires disclosure or dismissal. The legal threshold varies, but detailed proffers and sealed hearings can break stalemates.
Finally, pretrial motions can frame the case. Entrapment by estoppel, a cousin defense, arises when a government official affirmatively misleads a person into believing conduct is lawful. It is rare in drug cases but can appear in medical marijuana contexts or where local officers gave assurances at odds with state law. A skilled criminal drug charge lawyer will spot and separate these threads so the jury hears a coherent story.
Common myths clients bring to the first meeting
A few misconceptions show up repeatedly. People think that if an officer asked first, entrapment is automatic. Not true. People assume that saying yes quickly kills the defense. Quick agreement hurts, but it can be explained if the record shows a long grooming period. Some believe that a lack of criminal record guarantees success. Helpful, yes, but predisposition is broader than prior arrests.
Another myth is that destroying texts or avoiding recordings helps. It usually backfires. Jurors view missing evidence suspiciously. If the government has partial records, gaps look intentional. The better path is to preserve everything, even the ugly parts, and build a truthful narrative. A drug crimes lawyer with trial chops can turn rough edges into context and credibility.
Plea negotiations when entrapment is on the table
Most drug cases resolve short of trial. Entrapment defenses are leverage points when used wisely. The prosecutor’s risk is a not guilty verdict and a public airing of investigative tactics. The defense’s risk is a conviction with the weight of prior bad act evidence that would not have come in otherwise. The middle path often includes reduced counts, agreed quantities, or deferred adjudication.
Judgment calls matter. If recordings are thin and the client texted price lists, we might aim for a plea that avoids mandatory minimums. If the inducement is strong and the predisposition evidence is weak, I push harder, including seeking a pretrial dismissal or an Alford-type resolution. Prosecutors pay attention to how prepared the defense is. A meticulously organized evidence binder, lined with timestamps and transcripts, often does more work than a dozen adjectives in a motion.
Realistic examples that map the boundary lines
Consider a college student with no record. A classmate, working as an informant after his own arrest, asks three times over two weeks if she can score a small amount for a party. She says no twice. On the third ask, the classmate says, Please, I already told my cousin you could. She agrees to introduce the classmate to a friend who occasionally sells. She attends the meet, hands over the friend’s number, and leaves. The undercover pushes cash into her hand anyway, thanking her. The state charges conspiracy to distribute. Entrapment is a live issue, but so is the argument that she did not actually agree to the object of the conspiracy. In practice, a careful drug charge defense lawyer might pursue dismissal on legal sufficiency, with entrapment as a fallback for trial. If trial proceeds, her prior refusals and minimal involvement support lack of predisposition.
Now contrast a construction worker with sporadic prior sales. An undercover posing as a coworker says he can move two ounces a week. The worker responds with source options and standard prices, negotiates a bump for Saturday delivery, and volunteers to front the first deal. No pleading, no pressure, no special incentives. Entrapment would almost certainly fail. The defense should focus instead on search issues, chain of custody, or quantity inflation.
Then a harder one: a woman with a long-term opioid addiction. An informant who knows she is in withdrawal calls repeatedly, offering a “ticket” if she can connect him with a source for a bundle. She refuses twice, then agrees after he drops off food and adds, I will drive you to your clinic if you help me out. The deal goes through at a quantity far above her normal use. Here, a jury might find inducement grounded in exploitation of addiction and lack of predisposition to distribution of that magnitude. The government will argue she knew the players and had done this before. Expert testimony on addiction’s effect on decision making can tip the scales.
Practical steps to protect yourself if you sense a setup
- Stop communicating about contraband. Do not test whether the person is undercover. Do not ask if they are a cop. Just disengage. Preserve messages and call logs that show pressure or your refusals. Screenshot in context with timestamps. Consult a drug crimes attorney quickly. Early advice can prevent mistakes and channel communications through counsel. If already charged, do not talk to codefendants or informants. All discussions should run through your lawyer. Seek evaluation or treatment if addiction is part of the story. Documented effort helps legally and personally.
These are not tricks. They are common-sense moves that help a defense attorney drug charges team build the strongest possible record.
The prosecutor’s view, and why it matters to your strategy
Good prosecutors worry about overreach. They do not want verdicts reversed or reputations tarnished by sloppy stings. If you present a credible entrapment claim, some will adjust. That might mean offering a plea that aligns with a smaller, non-distribution offense, or agreeing to a diversion program. Others will double down, especially if they believe your client is a community supplier who got careful.
Your lawyer should map the personalities and priorities of the office handling the case. In some counties, the narcotics unit expects hard fights and is sting-proud. In others, a thoughtful memo that walks through inducement and predisposition, with exhibits attached, can shift outcomes. I have watched plea posture change after we produced a timeline that made the pressure undeniable. The key is to engage early and substantively. Empty bluster goes nowhere. Organized facts move mountains.
Ethical lines and the broader policy debate
Entrapment cases sit at the intersection of individual fairness and public safety. Undercover work is vital in dismantling trafficking networks. But there is a line between uncovering crime and creating it. When police tactics harvest low-level, vulnerable individuals rather than suppliers, communities lose trust, and courts see more entrapment claims. Transparency helps. Clear informant guidelines, supervisory review of quantities and incentives, and automatic preservation of all communications reduce gray areas.
From the defense side, we have responsibilities too. Not every hard sell is entrapment. Filing the defense in weak cases can backfire and dull its power in strong ones. A conscientious criminal drug charge lawyer vets the claim, gathers evidence before staking the case on it, and prepares alternative defenses in parallel.
How to talk about this with your attorney
Bring specifics, not generalities. Vague statements like They pushed me do not help until we anchor them in dates, messages, and witnesses. Tell your lawyer about prior drug involvement, even if embarrassing. If you hide conduct that will surface later, you kneecap your own entrapment claim. Share the unflattering text where you sounded savvy. Your lawyer has seen worse and needs the full picture.
If your case hinges on addiction or mental health, sign releases so counsel can obtain records. Consider a private evaluation. Judges and juries respond to professional assessments more than lay descriptions. If finances are tight, ask your attorney about community resources. Many courts respect documented effort at change.
Finally, ask your lawyer about jurisdiction-specific law. Some states allow the jury to consider post-contact behavior for predisposition, others emphasize pre-contact evidence. Burdens of proof differ. The timeline for seeking disclosure of informant identities varies. An experienced drug crimes lawyer in your venue will know these nuances.
The bottom line
Entrapment is not a magic wand. It is a demanding defense that succeeds when the record shows two things at once: government pressure that went beyond offering an opportunity, and a defendant who was not already ready and willing to commit the crime. In drug prosecutions, where undercover work is common, the difference between a lawful sting and an unlawful setup often lives in the details. Texts at 2 a.m., the fifth unanswered call, the sudden jump from grams to ounces, the promise of a favor that only an addicted person would value. Those are the facts that sway jurors.
If you suspect entrapment or face charges from a sting, move quickly. Preserve evidence, stay silent with anyone but counsel, and align with a defense attorney drug charges practice that has tried these cases to verdict. Whether the path leads to a dismissal, a favorable plea, or a jury acquittal, the outcome will track the quality of the record you build and the clarity of the story you tell.